tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN June 28, 2012 8:00pm-9:00pm EDT
>> i disagree with the supreme court's decision. i agree with the dissent. what the court did not do on its last day in session i will do on my first day if elected pre eed president of the united states. i will act to repeal obama care. >> governor romney called it bad law and bad policy. but keeping them honest it is also nearly identical to his own plan as governor of massachusetts. as for the mandate, well, keeping them honest, justice roberts today contradicted a key claim the president made. the president said that mandate was not a tax. >> for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. what it's saying is we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you. any more than the fact that right now everybody in america just about has to get auto insurance. nobody considers that a tax increase. >> nobody that is except chief justice john roberts. republicans have been running
today with his formulation. but keeping them honest, if justice roberts is right, if the obama care mandate really is just a tax, then so is the romney care mandate in massachusetts. listen to how then governor romney defendeded that. >> it's not a tax hike. it is a fee. an assessment. the great majority of employers in massachusetts are assessed this fee right now. >> it was somewhat lower when governor romney was defending it. just like president obama, mr. romney said the fee, or tax or penalty, whatever you want to call it, was there to make sure nobody was free ride on the health care system. that was six years ago. a lot's changed since. including, you'll remember these, those town halls three years ago. >> this is more about taking power and control than it is about health care. if only the first step to socialism. >> i don't want this country turning into russia. turning into a socialized country. >> we do not want this nation to be socialist. >> we do not want them involved
in our health care decisions. we do not want obama care. >> why are we willing to take the best health care system in the world and throw it right out the window? >> government isn't the answer, it's the cancer. >> i believe our country is being stolen from us. >> how in the world are we going to pay for it? >> you need to get the government the hell out of our way. >> has it cooled since then? how will today's ruling change the dynamic? a lot ground to cover tonight. including legal and political. an expanded panel joins us momentarily. i want to start now with barbara comstock. we just saw romney insisting a mandate is necessary and that it's not a tax. most of the republican party today spent the day insisting it is a tax and it isn't necessary. does that complicate the message? only two people in this country who put a health care mandate in place. he's one of them. >> no, not at all. he was talking about a state
policy. this is a national policy where we're imposing from the top down on every single state. what governor romney has said he will do on day one is he will give the states, all 50 states, a waiver from this national health care bill, so each state can go about doing what they want to do here. this is about federalism. allowing states to decide what's best for them. in the case of massachusetts, he decided there. but here, what is now happened is you have the american people having this $500 billion taxes imposed on all of them. whether their state chooses to or not. $500 billion in medicare cuts which nobody expected was going to happen in these things. this is something the president very strongly said was not a tax. argued with people like george stephanopoulos. most of the members who voted for this bill said it wasn't a tax increase. there are a lot of hidden tax increases in this. like taxes on investments. taxes on medical devices.
the takeaway taxes on flexible spending accounts that bur s tsy families with special needs children use. >> you said -- >> -- is going to repeal and replace and not impose these taxes -- these increased costs on states, you know -- >> barbara, let me jump in for a minute here. you say it's completely different. if the mandate is, in fact, a tax, does that mean mitt romney introduced an ambitious health care plan that raised taxes in massachusetts during a struggling economic recovery? which is exactly what he says the president did? >> it's totally different. on the federal level, you're not allowing the states to decide. in that state, massachusetts decided what they wanted to do. here, we're going to have a situation where, you know, he wants to have national bills that can do things like buy across state lines, you know, get rid of pre-existing conditions. there's a lot of bipartisan agreement on things we could do on the national level.
then allow people on the state level toll decide what they think is best for them. we could block grant medicaid. that would be something he supports. and would be great for, you know, all the states if they choose to do it. i'd prefer to have that in virginia. be like welfare reform. where virginia would be able to go about and see their unique population, throughout their states. what would be best for those populations. and using those federal medicate dollars. and how best we can do it instead of having the state tell us, the national government telling us how we should do it. i know obama care's going to cost my state millions and millions of dollars. kill without into k through 12. transcosts. that's why we were the first state to reject obama care. be very unhappy with this. this will hit our small businesses. our high tech companies. that really need to get out from under this huge tax that's going to be hitting our small businesses and our families. >> barbara, if you go to the
governor's campaign website. it says if elected president he would nominate judges in the mold of chief justice roberts. anything about today's ruling maybe going to have the governor rethinking that one? >> i think he also says chief justice roberts and alito if i recall. i disagree with justice roberts' decision today. i agree with the dissent. you want to have a judge who follows the law. who doesn't make it up. i think what the dissent pointed out is this sort of trying to turn the -- rewrite the law in order to say it's okay really wasn't the way to go. but, hey, the good thing is, we have a democratic process. now people are going to be talking about this. if we want to repeal and replace obama care, which there's bipartisan agreement that we should do that, then we need to replace barack obama because he will not do it and mitt romney has promised on day one he will do that and he will not impose all these tax increases that the
president has promised us not only in obama care but he has a whole nother raft of tax increases. so we're going to be hit in january with barack obama if he's still around in january with the largest tax increase in history when you combine all of these tax increases that he's promised the american people. and that will crush our economy. >> the american people get that choice, barbara, in 131 days. >> that's why we need a president, mitt romney. >> with us now, ari fleisher. paul begala. political analyst jeff toobin, gloria borger. and "360" m.d., dr. sanjay gupta. you said, instead of going on "anderson cooper" tonight and thundering about the injustices of the justices, i will be reduced to muing the mandate. i want to give you that chance.
have at it. mue away. >> it's astonishing. when someone as gifted as barbara comstock. and that long one-sided soliloquy. it was kind of a tongue in cheek thing. i like to fulminate and scream and yell. i did something good for the soul. i visited teddy kennedy's grave. he would be thundering. begala, get your head out of all the baloney and talk about the people. sometimes hacks like me forget that. there's tens of millions of people with pre-existing conditions. with special needs children. who are going -- moms who need mammograms. grandparents who need to get medical care. folks like me who have kids in college who want to keep them on their health care. tens of millions people benefited by this decision. people like me tend to forget that sometimes. >> gloria, in all the conversation today, it's no question, the court gave president obama a policy victory. some people say did he hand mitt romney a political rallying cry? twhil will this be a national
referendum now? >> yes. >> yes, yes on that question? >> yes, yes, and yes. we just learned the romney campaign since the decision has raised $2.7 million. just like that, john. and it's given republicans new enthusiasm for mitt romney. you know of course and you just asked barbara comstock about it that mitt romney was governor of the state of massachusetts when it passed a mandate. but what's going to happen in the 2012 is that we're going to relitigate health care reform. republicans believe what happened in 2010 which worked for them, they took control of the house, is going to work for them again in 2012. democrats will say, like paul, now the president is unleashed. he's liberated. he can talk about the benefit that health care reform is going to have for americans, particularly those who are uninsured. so it's going to sound a lot like 2010 to us, john. >> ari, remember, during the
republican primary, a lot of the challengers said romney was the wrong messenger. he had a plan. it had a mandate. does that complicate -- they think this rallies the base. you have to defeat the president himself. they think it helps them. does his own record make it tricky? >> it does make it a bit tricky. here's the thing. mitt romney is imperfect carrier of this message. given the fact he's running against president obama and given the fact he has promised to repeal obama care on the first day, he's plenty good enough. that's what it comes down to. an obama/romney race over the issue that gloria points out energizes republicans in 2010. let me respond to something paul said earlier. i wish health care was as simple as paul said. you could wave the magic wand. extend the insurance to people who don't have it. put people who are 26 and under on parent policies.
and make it all not cost a lot. it doesn't work that way it the problem with giving health care away free in a subsidized way so of en is it drives up the cost of insurance for everybody else and therefore makes insurance harder to get for everybody else. that's the real problem with obama care. which now is going to become known as obama tax care. it's a big substantive problem too. it doesn't solve the problem. it adds to the cost. >> you say he's an imperfect messenger. let's listen to one of the clips. mitt romney when he was massachusetts governor. >> with regards to the mandate, the individual responsibility program which i proposed, i was very pleased to see the compromise from the two houses includes the personal responsibility principle. that is essential for bringing health care costs down for everyone. and getting everybody the health insurance they deserve and need. >> now, the democrats say it's proof he loves the mandate.
>> barbara responded to that by saying it's a federalism issue. the real point is elections are about the future. mitt romney has made that pledge that he repeal it on the first day. he promised us it wasn't a tax. this congress never would have passed it. now, it's been sold to us as a penalty. but it is indeed a tax. the president who said he wouldn't raise taxes on anybody who made below $250,000, now he's threatening to raise taxes on tens of millions who make far, far less than that. >> david gergen, you can see from the reactions on both sides. the white house is trying to raise money. think the president kept his commitment. now with the help of the court to a signature issue of the democratic party. you see the romney campaign going to the right. raising a lot of money already. what about the middle? how do the centrist swing voters who tend to decide 50/50 elections, do they want this over? whether they favor the law or not back in 2010?
do they want it fight over? or do they want to litigate it again? >> excellent question, john. there's no question, there's no doubt this galvanizes the right. in talking to conservatives who were in state legislatures who got elected by the tea party folks, they say, look this is going to bring the tea party out. this is the issue that ignited those town halls. but mitt romney cannot win with simply the tea party as a base. he needs to bring in some of those people from the middle. in talking to a variety of folks today, john, my sense is there are a number of people in the middle who will have said "enough is enough." we've been litigating, talking about this for a long time. the supreme court was going to provide the decisive test. it has come down in favor of the president. let's give it a shot. let's get back to the critical issue in this campaign of jobs and economic growth. it's not clear to me that if mitt romney can ride this horse all the way to the white house, he's going to have to find a way to appeal to the middle. >> jeffrey, we're having this
conversation on television. no cameras in the court. you were one of the lucky 500 in the room when the decision came down. not the ruling most people expected. including yourself. take us back into the room. play out how it happened. >> john, i've been in this building right behind you many times. and i have never heard a silence as profound and tense as the one that took place in the minutes before 10:00. the supreme court is a prompt institution. the stroke of 10:00, they walked in, they dealt with a relatively minor case, and then the chief justice said, i have the opinion. and the national federation of independent businesses versus the department of health and human services. roberts looked different than he usually does. he wasn't as confident, as outgoing seemingly as he usually was. he was almost downcast. and as he began to speak he spoke first about the issue we've been talking so much about. the commerce clause. does the congress have the power under the commerce clause of
article 1 of the constitution to impose an individual mandate? it became clear he was saying no, congress doesn't have that power. that seems like it was it. the law was going to be invalidated. they he turned to a relatively minor issue. the taxing power. you could see as he was talking and several of us were looking at each other, saying, is he saying what we think he's saying? at that point, he said this is something is legitimate, tolerable under the taxing power. he was approving the law. i saw scalia, who is the senior associate justice now, and he looked distraught because he had lost this case. anthony kennedy who we thought was the swing vote, he later wrote a scathing, angry bitter dissent. where he said he would have invalidated the entire law.
so that's how close this was. but the result was quite clear. >> sanjay, you heard governor romney a few moments ago say on day one he would act to repeal it. if you go to his website, it gives details. what we don't have from him is a sequencing. you take whatever executive steps you can. then you ask the congress to do things. you've talked to his policy advisers about this. how do they do the sequencing? the governor says he doesn't want to -- he would keep the pre-existing condition thing. but how would they do it? >> well, you know, it's funny because i've asked that same question, john. there's not good answers on that particular issue. even with regard to some of the bigger components. i talked to his health care policy provider. he said the governor would keep the nondiscriminatory clauses. based on pre-existing conditions but get rid of the whole mandate. that's different than saying he would repeal the whole thing.
again, in no specific order, john, was this idea that people should be allowed to purchase insurance, health care insurance, across state lines, allow more competition and drive down premiums that way was one of the things. for not purchasing health care insurance, he was talking more about incentives for people being healthy. for people doing things that would make them healthy. so, again, i didn't see anything about the sequencing. i'm not sure this is a radical departure. as it's been described. from what we're talking about now. those are the things that stuck out. >> dr. gupta, thank you. paul, david, gloria, thanks. let us know what you think. we're on facebook. i want to dig deeper into the actual health care many pla cations of today's decision. also, the former attorney general alberto gone gonseale
sp. let us know what you think. high schools in six states enrolled in the national math and science initiative... ...which helped students and teachers get better results in ap courses. together, they raised ap test scores 138%. just imagine our potential... ...if the other states joined them. let's raise our scores. let's invest in our teachers and inspire our students.
to learn more, visit us today. responsibility. what's your policy? you walk into a conventional mattress store, it's really not about you. they say, "well, if you wanted a firm bed you can lie on one of those. we provide the exact individualization that your body needs. wow, that feels really good! once you experience it, there's no going back. and don't miss our special financing now through july 4th only. plus enjoy the lowest prices of the season on selected bed sets only at the sleep number store, where queen mattresses start at just $699.
we said at the top today's supreme court decision was a stunner given how poorly the more court watchers thought they did arguing the administration's case. jeffrey toobin famously predicted disaster. alberto gonzales said he thought the law would be upheld. whether justice roberts' opinion today represents the kind of judicial modesty he promised during his confirmation hearing. judge gonzales, let me start with you. you basically called this yesterday. saying judge roberts would side with some of the liberals on the court. it didn't come down exactly as you thought. how so? >> well, you're right, we ended up where i thought we might be but i was surprised. i really thought chief justice would bring justice kennedy with him. i really felt the court would defer the question of the mandate because they would wait till 2014 or 2015 when someone is actually injured. it didn't turn out that way. >> and, jeff, as you know, one
of the hazards of our business is these video libraries. everything we say can come back to bite us. i want to take you back to march after oral arguments when you said this. >> this was a train wreck for the obama administration. this law looks like it's going to be struck down. all of the predictions, including mine, that the justices would not have a problem with this law, were wrong. >> you were 1 of 500 people in the room when this came down and you knew you were going to eat some crow. >> i sure did. you know, look, our job is accountability for other people and it should be for us too. i was wrong. i thought that argument went very badly. i was very critical of donald varili. he's a hero in the obama administration. it's no surprise the president made his first phone call to varili afterwards. look, i thought that the argument on the commerce clause was really the core of this case. and all of the conservative justices, including justice,
chief justice roberts, and especially justice kennedy, were very skeptical about whether the commerce clause was a ju justification for this law. they voted against the commerce clause. this taxing power issue really snuck up on us. it certainly snuck up on me. looking back at the oral argument now, you can see that chief justice roberts asked a couple of questions about this, but he was obviously very aware of this issue from the beginning. and he saved the president's bacon on this one. no doubt about it. >> judge gonzales, you were involved in the nomination of john roberts back in the george w. bush administration. his 2005 confirmation hearing, he told the senate this, i will remember it's my job to call balls and strikes and not pitch or bat. is that what he's done with this decision? played umpire? >> i have a great deal of confidence and faith in john roberts. you know, obviously, he's only been on the court six or seven years. i think his legacy's yet to be written. i think we just need to reserve
judgment. he's a very bright man. he obviously is aware of his place in history. obviously aware about the protection, the reputation, of the court. but i still stand by our initial analysis of john roberts. i think he's a conservative justice. and we'll decide, most cases, in that fashion. >> jeff, judge gonzales has an important point. judicial conservative versus political conservativism. a lot of political conservatives are upset. he was supposed to be automatic. isn't that in some ways, can't you make the case, this is a conservative decision? >> it's an issue of judicial restraint. the definition of judicial restraint is deferring to the democratically elected branches of government. and whatever you think of this law, it was passed by the congress and signed by the president. they're the ones who answer to the voters. i think we need to take a deep breath and also remember that john roberts has also been part of the majority in the citizens united case.
he was part of striking down the civil rights decisions in louisville. and seattle. this is still a very conservative justice. >> judge gonzales, out in the country, people don't think much of any of the institutions of washington. the approval rating of the supreme court now at the lowest it's ever been. it's been a big day and a big week for the court. do you think this will help or hurt the american people's p perception of the high court? >> i think it depends on what the people think of the decision. i think from the perspective of the judges, listen, they're given life tenure for a reason. their job is to do their job. apply the constitution. apply the law. irrespective of whether it's popular or not. that's their job. hopefully that will continue to be their job. >> jeff, the way the system is set up, the court, the high court, is supposed to be above the political fray if you will. essentially an apolitical body. even though the appointees come out of the political system.
bush v. gore raised a lot of questions about that. justice scalia's dissent in the arizona case the other day. very political. a big decision like this. do you think inner er iterms o court political? is it above the fray? >> i would say it's not above the fray. look, these decisions are as much political as they are legal. the idea that there is some sort of clear dividing line between politics and law when you're talking about issues like whether a woman halgss a rice g choose abortion. the politics and the law are bound together. now, that is always -- it's hard to untangle. and today this was a decision that one justice behaved unpredictably, but eight of them behaved very predictably. and i think by and large the politics and the law merged together but not 100% of the time, which is what makes these
cases so interesting. because you never know when there is going to be an exception like there is today. >> jeffrey toobin, judge alberto gonzales, gentlemen, thank you. now, having already shown that doctors and lawyers can indeed get along, dr. sanjay gupta and jeffrey toobin. there are questions now about the practicality. what does this mean for everybody out there as it's implemented over the next few years? >> as you point out, it's not going to happen tomorrow. this is a process. for good reason. there's a lot of moving parts here. basic -- counselple of basic po here. they're saying people have to have health insurance now. you get either tax credits or you may qualify for medicaid. if you don't do those things, then you'll face a penalty or a tax. as you've been talking about throughout the show. i want to give you some these numbers here. i don't know if people understand some of these numbers. as far as the penalty or tax
goes, in year 2014, when this is implemented, for an individual, that penalty will be $95 or 1% of your income, whichever's greater. by the year 2016, it would go up to $695, again, for an individual, or 2.5% of your income. so big question, are people going to pay that penalty or are they going to get health care? i mean, they're going -- some people may weigh those two things and see how much each costs. and make their decision, that way. that's something to take into account. as to why not everyone will still have health care insurance. some people may choose to pay that penalty. there's also an expansion of medicaid at that time as well at the state level. it's going up to 130% of poverty level. if you look at the numbers now, that means for an individual making less than $14,800, they're going to qualify for medicaed me medicaid. that's going to be 15 million more people on medicaid. when you talk about that 30 million more people being
insured, that's a little bit of how they get to that number. again, it's going to take some time, john. >> as that plays out, jeff toobin, when it comes to health care bill, that building behind us, the supreme court, are we done? could it be before the court again? >> done, over. this is not coming back. one of the things the justices do is they tend to take one last look at a subject and let the lower courts figure it out at this point. there are going to be lots and lots of cases about how the obama care law is interpreted. what all these provisions mean. but whether it's the law of the land, that's over, it is. >> sanjay and jeff, thanks so much. a lot more happening tonight. firefighters battling the giant waldo canyon fire may get a break in the weather. er is difft
the giant waldo canyon wildfire in colorado has devoured at least 346 homes in colorado springs. the u.s. forest service says it could be mid-july before the massive fire is fully under control. more than 30,000 people have been forced from their homes. the fbi is investigating reports that an arsonist may have started it all.
president obama will arrive tomorrow to survey the damage and to meet with firefighters. rob marciano is in colorado springs for us. bring us up to date. what's the latest on fighting the fires? >> well, john, we got lucky today. a thin vaeil of overcast clouds came in. temperatures were kept much cooler than we thought. also kept the thunderstorm activity down so the erratic winds we've seen were not there. as you mentioned, firefighters got a bit of a handle on this. the damage is done. 346 homes burned by this fire. it is the most destructive fire in colorado history. behind me, you can see, across i-25, can't get much access beyond that. the air force academy is staging the choppers that are fighting this fire. you see the smoke. you see the communities right up against that smoke and that flame very still, very close to the fire line. this is not the only fire burning. as we've been reporting for weeks, john. there are several large fires still burning across the state of colorado.
>> rob, it is always a problem across that region this time of year. it seems colorado is burning worse than some of the surrounding states. >> we didn't have much snow this winter, john. it's been a hot spring too. couple that with the fact we had a ton of snow last year. so that fed the vegetation we had. a ton of vegetation this year. it was dried out earlier than usual. we had this record searing heat wee been enduring the past several days. that's the main reason colorado really is feeling it. we're just getting started really into fire season. >> and for days, the weather was an impediment to fighting the fire. you say it's a bit of a break today. what's the forecast looking ahead to tomorrow? >> well, about the same as what we saw today. that would be great. we have seen temperatures well up and over 100 greadegrees the several day. as far as the rest of the country, the heat that accelerated this fire is now moving to the east and is going to be a record breaking heat wave for parts of the east coast. look at some of these numbers. over 100 forecast for tomorrow.
st. louis, nashville, atlanta, even in d.c., john. you may touch 100 degrees. that's dangerous heat. fire or not. back to you. >> rob marciano, live for us out in colorado, thank you. let's get to some other stories. isha joins us. >> secretary state clinton is in russia in a bid to stop moscow from providing arms to the syrian regime. in central damascus, two massive explosions. in what state run tv called an attack on the justice ministry. opposition groups report 140 people, including a number of syrian troops, were killed across the country today. other news, a new emergency text message system will alert people in areas threatened by severe weather. the national weather service launched the service today which will broadcast messages to all cell phones within reach of an affected area. and snoop dogg paid a fine of nearly $2,000 in norway for carrying marijuana through customs at an airport. police spokeswoman says the rap
star was carrying 8 grams of pot. oh, dear. back to you, john. >> pay the fine, pay the fine. isha, thanks. democrats express their own contempt by walking out of a house vote to hold the attorney general holder in contempt of congress. just as new and serious questions are being raised about what the fast and furious operation was really all about. the latest neck. ♪
send a note stay informed catch a show. make your point make a memory make a masterpiece. read something watch something and learn something. do it all more beautifully, with the retina display on ipad. diarrhea, gas or bloating? get ahead of it! one phillips' colon health probiotic cap a day helps defend against digestive issues with three strains of good bacteria. hit me! [ female announcer ] live the regular life. phillips'.
for the first time in history, the house of representatives has voted to hold the attorney general of the united states in contempt of congress. for refusing to hand over certain documents relating to the investigation of the fast and furious weapons operation it many democrats refused to participate. walked off the house floor in protest. shortly after the contempt vote, holder called it unnecessary and unwarranted. >> today's vote may make for good political theater in the minds some but it is at base both a crass effort and grave disservice to the american people. they expect and they deserve far more. >> today's vote follows a report that suggests the fast and furious may not have been the
scandal we've been led to believe it is. fortune magazine's catherine ebonn writes that letting guns be smuggled into mexico was never part of the plan it this is a member of oversight committee that led the investigation. congressman, you were here on the program last night with soledad, taking issue with the "fortune" magazine issue. i want to read your statement from the attorney. for the agent in charge of the atf office at the time of the fast and furious program. each of which has been a truthful account of the atf investigation. each of which is entirely consistent with the reporting in the "fortune" article. bill has consistently maintained there was never a plan or tactic to walk guns that atf agents seized guns when they where lawfully permitted to do by the u.s. attorney general's office. never raised a concern over so-called gun walking tactics. he's saying the "fortune"
magazine article is in line with what agent newell told the congress. how do you response? >> well, i don't care what he told us in that statement. what we're seeking are all of the documents relating to an incident in which and a plan in which we know first of all that the department of justice lied to us. they told us they knew nothing about it from february 4th, 2011, for some 11 months. we have documentation that they knew and kept this from us. furthermore, we have subpoenaed documents and asked patiently for eight months for the rest of the information. i really don't give a hill of beans what's in any magazine article. my job as a representative of the people. when taxpayer's money has been used to develop a plan and to
end up with guns being transported into mexico, given to drug dealers and murderers and an agent killed, we need to find out all the facts. >> but you say you don't give a hill of beans what's in a magazine article, sir, but what about what the attorney just said? he says he told congress things consistent with the magazine article. do you give a hill of beans about what he told you? >> well, different people have told us different things. including, first, lies from the department of justice. then eric holder told us a different story. and we have magazine article stories that you may want to quote. all i'm interested in is a member of the investigative arm of congress. is getting all of the documents relating to what took place, holding people accountable. making certain that, again, pleas of even the terry family, who lost their loved one in this botched scheme cooked up by the
department of justice, at taxpayer's expense that people are held accountable, period. what can't you understand about that? this is -- we had many democrats support us today in our effort. this is a simple right of congress. we fund that activity of the department of justice. we created the department of justice. and we have an oversight responsibility. and to have the attorney general make a comment like that is an insult to this whole process. and i called before for his resignation. and i think he should step down immediately. the shame and disgrace he's brought to that agency. >> you are correct when you say the justice department initially say it had no knowledge of this. the attorney general later acknowledged the existence of so-called gun walking. any instance of so-called gun walking is unacceptable. regrettably, this ticket was used as part of fast and furious. according to that article, there was one instance of gun walk.
but it insists only one. are you willing to give the attorney general the benefit of the doubt? that perhaps what happened happened only once and no more? >> absolutely not. this is why we're doing this. trying to get the documents that have the evidence of who did what. who's responsible. this is a fundamental right of the investigative arm of the house of representatives. that's the committee on investigations and oversight. for him to thwart it in this manner is a disgrace to his office. today, he disgraced the office and forced this vote by not complying. i said on the floor he has been in contempt. he is in contempt. and he has contempt for the people of the united states. and the department of justice by his actions mica, you've suggested they have been using
it at an excuse. you've doubled down in recent days. what is your evidence, sir? >> well, first, just go back. i mean, the great thing, you can google now, orb just go on the internet and search. and look at the administration. their whole theory. their whole plan was that the violence in mexico was due to weapons, united states weapons, getting into mexico. that is a completely bogus argument. i chaired criminal justice and drug policy subcommittee. i know what went on. there's corruption from one end of mexico to the other. there's drug trafficking. there's murders. there's gangs. and the next thing they'll be asking us to do is ban knives because now they resort to decapitation of their victims. >> but you say that you don't believe their theory. but what -- what gun law has the administration sent up to
congress? >> well, again, i'm talking about the very beginning. and how this tried to come down. >> but by you -- you say they're trying to undermine the gun rights of gun owners in the united states. to undermine or take back gun rights, they would have to introduce legislation, would they not? >> yes. what they were trying to do is set the premise. first, they said the violence in mexico was due to guns coming from the united states. little did we know that they were actually being supplied by the department of justice. in a scheme that the taxpayers of the united states were funding. and would end up killing our agent, brian terry, and hundreds of mexicans. so, yes, they laid the groundwork for this. and the whole thing backfired. but it's pretty sad. this is a very sad day. we didn't want to do this. we asked. we could have stopped this whole proceeding if the attorney general had replied with a request from our lawful subpoenas that were delivered to
him. >> so, where does it go from now? he's been held in contempt by the house of representatives. which may be a public embarrassment to him. you heard his statement coming back to you. you don't still have these documents. will there be any effort to work this out? >> well, there was two things that passed. he was held in contempt on a civil charge. he was held in contempt also on a criminal charge. he is interfering with a lawful investigation of an investigative committee of congress. he, again, is standing in the way of our pursuing what took place in criminal actions. we know there were criminal actions. people were killed. including a federal agent. so we will continue to use every lawful means, every process, due process. he's entitled to due process. and maybe he is totally innocent. maybe he has no responsibility or knowledge of of what went on.
because statements in that regard, though, are conflicting, from denying in the beginning and then telling us, oh, yeah, we knew about it, but we had to lie to you. so we will pursue this to the nth degree. that's our responsibility. >> congressman mica, expeapprec it. wick ka leaks founder julian assange tries to fight extra days extradition. see life in the best light. [music] transitions® lenses automatically filter just the right amount of light. so you see everything the way it's meant to be seen. experience life well lit, ask for transitions adaptive lenses.
i'm one of six children that my mother raised by herself, and so college was a dream when i was a kid. i didn't know how i was gonna to do it, but i knew i was gonna get that opportunity one day, and that's what happened with university of phoenix. nothing can stop me now. i feel like the sky's the limit with what i can do and what i can accomplish. my name is naphtali bryant and i am a phoenix. visit phoenix.edu to find the program that's right for you. enroll now.
now, the "360" bulletin. >> the supreme court has struck down a federal law that makes it a crime to lie about earning military medals. the ruling is a victory for a former public official. he was prosecuted by the justice department for lying about earning the medal of honor. the justices said the so-called stolen valor law violates free speech protection. toxicology results showed the man who chewed off another man's face in an attack in miami did not have bath salts in his system as police had suspected. tests on the man showed marijuana but no other drugs or alcohol. eugene was killed by police during the attack. british police have demanded that assange appear at a police station in connection with his extradition. assange is seeking asylum at the ecuadorian embassy in london. he's wanted for questioning in
allegations of rape and sexual assault. the world's most expensive bottle of wine. one of these limited edition bottles from australian wine maker cost $168,000. if you buy one, someone from the company comes to personally open it for you. for that price, i think someone should hold the glass to my lips. >> better be good. thanks, isha. we'll be right back. i am from baltimore south carolina... bloomington, california... austin, texas... we are all here to represent the country we love this is for everyone back home it's go time. across america, we're all committed to team usa. delivering mail, medicine and packages.
yet the house is considering a bill to close thousands of offices, slash service and layoff over 100,000 workers. the postal service is recording financial losses, but not for reasons you might think. the problem ? a burden no other agency or company bears. a 2006 law that drains $5 billion a year from post office revenue while the postal service is forced to overpay billions more into federal accounts. house bill 2309 is not the answer. the radical new macbook pro with retina display. ♪ innovation...in every dimension. ♪ agents, say hello to the biggest hailstone in u.s. history.
oh, that will leave a dent. which is exactly why we educate people... about comprehensive coverage. yep. the right choice now can pay off later. looks like a bowling ball. yeah. oh! agents, say hello to the second-biggest hailstone in u.s. history. [ announcer ] we are insurance. ♪ we are farmers bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪
now. tonight, the historic moment that may win or lose the election for president obama. >> i didn't do this because it was good politics. i did it because i believed it was good for the country. >> what the court did not do on its last day in session, i will do on my first day if elected president of the united states. >> the supreme court dramatically keeps obama care alive. who are the real winners and who are the losers and what happens now? tonight, both sides debate it out. plus, patrick kennedy. health care was his father's legacy. and rick santorum, he's not happy at all. also, last night, about john edwards. >> i don't think he was in his right mind when he did that. he was temporarily insane. >> is rielle herself thinking straight? this is "piers morgan tonight."